( 1 ) HEARD Sri Shailendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. S. Sharma, learned Standing counsel for the State. In this writ petition the prayer has been made to quash the order dated 21. 5. 1998 and again order dated 28. 11. 1998 and the Enquiry Report enclosed as (Annexures No. 9, 11 and 6) respectively. It appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in Provincial Arms constabulary in 15 Batallian P. A. C. , Agra on 1. 1. 1986. The petitioner was alleged to have stolen identity card, driving licence and diary of one drawer Amar Singh. Within one day inquiry was completed and petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the dismissal order which was allowed by D. I. G. , P. A. C. , Agra dated 30. 6. 1996 (Annexure-1 ). Fresh charge-sheet was issued on 27. 12. 1996 against the petitioner in reference to incident of 22. 1. 1996 and in reference to the allegations prior to 22. 1. 1996 in which enquiry was already been pending and one Kunwar Pal Singh, Assistant Commandant, 45 Bn. PAC, Aligarh, was the enquiry officer and the statement of Mitra Prakash Tiwari and Ravindra Yadav, both Constables and Amar Singh whose diary etc. were alleged to have been stolen, were recorded. It appears that in all the statements were some contradiction and there is no direct evidence where it could be said that the petitioner has stolen the alleged items. The enquiry officer Sri Kunwar Pal Singh has submitted the report on 23. 4. 1998 (Annexure-6 ). In reference to the show cause notice the petitioner was allowed 8 days time to give a response. The petitioner on 16. 5. 1998 wrote a letter seeking some more time on the ground his son is not well. Letter of request is enclosed as (Annexure-8 ). Petitioner was not granted time and an ex-parte decision dated 21. 5. 1998 was taken which is the impugned order of the present writ petition. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Dy. Inspector General of Police who after considering the same dismissed on 22. 7. 1998 (Annexure-10) and appeal preferred against the above order 21. 5. 1998 before the d. I. G. Police which was dismissed on 28. 11. 1998 which is also an impugned order in the writ petition.

( 2 ) THE counter and rejoinder-affidavit has been exchange.

( 3 ) THE points/issued raised by the petitioner for consideration before this Court is :

(a) As per Rule 13 of the U. P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal)Rules, 1991, which provides that in case the enquiry officer has done a preliminary enquiry in a case, he shall not conduct the subsequent or main enquiry under the aforesaid Rule. In the present case, the preliminary enquiry was done by Kunwar Pal Singh, Assistant Commandant, 45 bn. PAC, Aligarh. The fact can be con- firmed by letter Annexures No. 1, 2 and 3 annexed to the supplementary-affidavit. All these letters were issued by Kunwar Pal Singh who was the enquiry officer in the preliminary enquiry which concluded and the petitioners services were dismissed on 23. 1. 1996. Fresh enquiry was initiated by the charge-sheet dated 27. 12. 1996 in which the enquiry officer submitted the report on 23. 4. 1998, (Annexxure-6 ). The name of the enquiry officer mentioned in the concluding page 6, the enquiry officer was Kunwar Pal Singh, Assistant commandant. Therefore, it is clear that the enquiry officer in the preliminary enquiry as well as in the main enquiry was the same Kunwar Pal Singh, therefore, the enquiry is vitiated in view of the provisions of Rule 13 of the U. P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and appeals) Rules, 1991.

(b) The main enquiry is also vitiated on the ground that the provisions of Regulations 486 (1), (5)and (6) of the Police Regulations were completely violated by the authority concerned including the Appointing Authority as they failed to observe the process contemplated in the said regulation. They also violated the Government Order dated 29